Re: Temporaray enlargement of the GNOME Board with 2 persons

["Dominic Lachowicz" <domlachowicz gmail com>]

Hi Anne,

> > I think that I need not tell you, that the two candidates in question
> > are highly respected for their long time great contributions to the
> > GNOME project and the GNOME community spirit.
> >
> > Being responsible for having proposed this temporary compromise
> > solution, I naturally hope for your blessings.
> >
> > Please react within 10 days if you have problems with enlarging the
> > board by inviting Behdad Esfahbod and Germán Poó-Caamaño to join the
> > GNOME Board of Directors for the rest of 2006.

[snip]

> PS The board is putting great efforts into delegating tasks as we know
> that there are many members eager to give a hand. In fact we almost
> always get a yes when we ask.

I appreciate the board's efforts, hard work, and dedication. I applaud
the board's recent resolve to delegate more things, including
delegating the TM document to me. I hope not to disappoint you.

However, I still haven't heard a good explanation as to *why* the
board needs more members to fulfill its duties. Or why 2 is the magic
number. Or why the new positions would only be temporary. What
problems is the board facing that cannot be handled by the current
members plus delegation as appropriate? Or if certain members can't
meet their obligations due to outside or future committments (as was
Luis' case recently) - over-qualified and passionate as they are -  is
the correct solution to resign and let other people replace them?

In my opinion, you've asked us to voice an opinion without presenting
information necessary to forming a qualified opinion. This is made
even more difficult (IMO, of course) since no board meeting minutes
have been released since March 22, which is fast approaching 3 months
ago.

I don't know all of the problems facing the board. I'm not sure that
I'm entitled to know them. But from what little information I have, I
can't help but feel that the board has gotten more opaque and
overworked since its recent reduction to 7 members. (For the record, I
still dislike that no good argument was made then as to what problems
the previous board was facing, and why getting rid of 4 people would
have solved those problems. IMHO, history now repeats itself.)

If adding 2 more members will help solve the board's problems in ways
that delegation or attrition alone can't, then great. Let's do it. But
please, make an argument in the next 3 days as to why adding these
people will help solve the problem.

Best,
Dom
--
Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums.